The key to becoming good at bullet is to never play other types of chess. Then you'll be able to beat the likes of Nakamura because you are just faster than him and you won't waste time thinking about what to do like he does.

The downside of this is that slow players that aren't ready to realize this will hate you because they've only played bullet once and have not magically improved as you have. Bullet is a tough game and it isn't for everyone. Be content with your powers and only use them for good.

The key to becoming good at bullet is to never play other types of chess. Then you'll be able to beat the likes of Nakamura because you are just faster than him and you won't waste time thinking about what to do like he does.

So it stands to reason that there is no correlation between a bullet rating and any other rating, even blitz.

This kind of comment always makes me laugh ; when people can't play a decent bullet game, they say it's not real chess.There is a correlation between bullet and standard rating when you play both types ; you should read Nakamura and Seirawan comments' about bullet and blitz games.Also, I myself have been able sometimes to play decent games in bullet.Here my preferred example : http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/constriction.

people like Nakamura and Seirawan are the only people who can play a semi-decent game of chess in short time spans. everyone else who thinks they can do the same are more or less delusional.

And you know this how? And please don't tell me "in your experience" becuase we have enough of that crap on this forum...

So it stands to reason that there is no correlation between a bullet rating and any other rating, even blitz.

This kind of comment always makes me laugh ; when people can't play a decent bullet game, they say it's not real chess.There is a correlation between bullet and standard rating when you play both types ; you should read Nakamura and Seirawan comments' about bullet and blitz games.Also, I myself have been able sometimes to play decent games in bullet.Here my preferred example : http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/constriction.

people like Nakamura and Seirawan are the only people who can play a semi-decent game of chess in short time spans. everyone else who thinks they can do the same are more or less delusional.

And you know this how? And please don't tell me "in your experience" becuase we have enough of that crap on this forum...

- In Bullet one plays way more intuitive moves than precisely calculated moves. (if you have a decent level, you WILL calculate some things even in 1 0 bullet. Taking 10 seconds in a crucial moment to check a combination is possible and necessary if you want to reach a certain level)

- A time advantage is a real factor that may turn a game. But weak players tend to over-estimate the time factor. The better you get, the faster you can play GOOD moves. Just clicking as fast as you can will neither win you a bullet game nor any common video game.

- In Bullet it is important to quickly anticipate your opponents moves. Especially if you play for a time edge in the endgame, anticipating "useless" checks will save you some valuable seconds. This is a trick that of course plays almost no role in tournament chess. Still, even there it is useful to sometimes be able to predict bad moves.

If decent players play 1 1 bullet, they will not flag unless the connection is bad as you can play 2-3 moves in one second. 2 moves in one second is possible even OTB.

Bullet is of course not as significant as Blitz, which is less significant than Rapid and tournament chess. Still I don't want to judge whether you need 10, 50 or 200 bullet games to get a result that can be compared with one game at tournament time.

But anyways the decisive factor to win in Bullet is chess skill. If you are slightly faster but keep blundering pieces, you might win one lucky game, but never remain on top in a long match.

There are many good chess players, that are weak at Bullet but I have never seen a good Bullet player that was weak at chess.

people like Nakamura and Seirawan are the only people who can play a semi-decent game of chess in short time spans. everyone else who thinks they can do the same are more or less delusional.

So many delusional : Malakhov, Kasparov, Movsesian, Anand...

-kenpo- wrote:

Comments they may make in regards to blitz and bullet are probably for the most part not really directed at or applicable to enthusiast (below 2000) blitz and bullet. they are more likely talking about the blitz and bullet that's played between very strong professionals.

US Champion Hikaru Nakamura and Bruce Harper have written the first book about bullet chess.

The authors discuss the relationship between the position on the board and time on the clock, the techniques and dangers of "pre-moving", bullet openings, and the importance of the initiative and consistent strategy.

They also explore the psychology of bullet chess and the most common causes of tactical oversights and blunders. You will learn how to apply the principles of bullet chess to time scrambles in standard chess.

Is bullet any good for your play? YES, says former US Champion Yasser Seirawan in his foreword. It teaches pattern recognition, "ideas are reinforced, helping you with your calculation during tournament play".

-kenpo- wrote:

there's a difference between thinking about, evaluating the position and coming up with a strong plan and simply making a move in a fraction of a second that doesn't immediately hang material or get mated.

Yes, that's why I gave you an example of how I did it once. You prepare the plan by analysing your previous games. And yes ,it makes sense to analyse your games even if it's bullet. You don't need to analyze all your games, just the ones which seem worthy.

-kenpo- wrote:

it only stands to logic that strong professionals are the only people who have developed a sufficiently subconcious positional understanding whereby they can intuitively play strings of strong and positionally sound moves within seconds.

And those who did not "developed a sufficiently subconcious positional understanding" can die... or train until reaching that "sufficiently subconcious positional understanding". But how do they train?

it's simple logic.

" By strictly observing Botvinnik's rule regarding the thorough analysis of one's own games, with the years I have come to realize that this provides the foundation for the continuous development of chess mastery." - Garry Kasparov

As for time scrambles: Time scrambles in a long game are not as easy to compare to a short time control game as one might think. The point is that, even when you are down to your last few minutes, the fact that you have been thinking about the position for hours gives you a sense of closeness to the struggle (you have familiarized yourself with plans, the nature of the position, stuff like this), probably making it easier to find the right moves; in a blitz game, the position is happening in front of you, almost before you can fully process it, making the time scrambles of a more mindless nature, at least in my opinion.

Help us finish translating:

We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!